I think there is a good point to be made here that there is ample justification to take out Solemeini on the basic facts of who he was, where he was, and his past activities. The Administration seems to be going overboard, and making themselves look rather ridiculous, by trying to come up with an immediacy to act that they cannot back up even on U.S. talk shows. They don't need it. The immediacy of it was that he was 'doable'. He could be taken out with others of his kind and no civilians involved.

There have been a couple of interesting incidents in fiction that have relevance. In "The West Wing" a terrorist who is a government official is attacked at an island refueling stop (I'm just going by memory here, I could be off on details). The U.S. President and his staff feel justified but are conscious it might have legal and political repercussions, so they are trying to do it but not be traceable. Ultimately they succeed with the killing, but not with the hiding.

In "The Good Wife" one of the legal cases involves a drone operator who takes out armed combatants but also takes out civilians. She is court-martialed based on her violation of Rules of Engagement.

Part of me is wondering whether there is actually a planned "Wag the Dog" effect in making sure that the operation is contentious and controversial so that we are ALL being played in that publicity is off both the Democratic primaries and debates, and also diverted from the Impeachment Saga/Soap Opera.

So the Reps are masterful and pathetic at the same time, yet Trump as an 'executer' gives that all-important masculine dominant trait of making his bones.

It may be that I have exhaustively restated Donuel's point without reference to surrealism. Only D can say!